1. Richardson, K. et al. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci. Adv. 9, eadh2458 (2023).

   Google Scholar 

2. Rockström, J. et al. Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature 619, 102–111 (2023).

   Google Scholar 

3. IPCC Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Lee, H. & Romero, J.) (IPCC, 2023).

4. Zommers, Z. et al. Burning embers: towards more transparent and robust climate-change risk assessments. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 516–529 (2020).

   Google Scholar 

5. Sanderson, K. Net-zero pledges are growing—how serious are they? Nature 618, 893 (2023).

   CAS 

   Google Scholar 

6. Rogelj, J. et al. Credibility gap in net-zero climate targets leaves world at high risk. Science 380, 1014–1016 (2023).

   CAS 

   Google Scholar 

7. Kemp, L. et al. Climate endgame: exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2108146119 (2022).

   CAS 

   Google Scholar 

8. Steel, D., DesRoches, C. T. & Mintz-Woo, K. Climate change and the threat to civilization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2210525119 (2022).

   CAS 

   Google Scholar 

9. Geels, F. W. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory Cult. Soc. 31, 21–40 (2014).

   Google Scholar 

10. Stoddard, I. et al. Three decades of climate mitigation: why haven’t we bent the global emissions curve? Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 653–689 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

11. Grubb, M. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) 150–213 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

12. Colgan, J. D., Green, J. F. & Hale, T. N. Asset reevaluation and the existential politics of climate change. Int. Organ. 75, 586–610 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

13. Franta, B. Weaponizing economics: big oil, economic consultants and climate policy delay. Environ. Polit. 31, 555–575 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

14. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011).

15. Mann, M. E. The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet (PublicAffairs, 2021).

16. Young, K. A., Banerjee, T. & Schwartz, M. Levers of Power: How the 1% Rules and What the 99% Can Do About It (Verso Books, 2020).

17. Barros, B. & Wilk, R. The outsized carbon footprints of the super-rich. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 17, 316–322 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

18. Chancel, L. Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019. Nat. Sustain. 5, 931–938 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

19. Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T. & Steinberger, J. K. Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat. Commun. 11, 3107 (2020).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

20. Thiri, M. A., Villamayor-Tomás, S., Scheidel, A. & Demaria, F. How social movements contribute to staying within the global carbon budget: evidence from a qualitative meta-analysis of case studies. Ecol. Econ. 195, 107356 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

21. Creutzig, F. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch. 5 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

22. Clemence, M. & Boyon, N. Doctors and Scientists Are Seen as the World’s Most Trustworthy Professions (Ipsos, 2022).

23. Nisbet, M. C. & Mooney, C. Framing science. Science 316, 56 (2007).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

24. Besley, J. C. & Nisbet, M. How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Underst. Sci. 22, 644–659 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

25. Corner, A., Shaw, C., Clarke, J. & Wang, S. Communicating Environmental and Sustainability Science: Challenges, Opportunities, and the Changing Political Context (Ipsos, 2018).

26. Pidcock, R. et al. Evaluating effective public engagement: local stories from a global network of IPCC scientists. Clim. Change 168, 21 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

27. Tormos-Aponte, F. et al. Pathways for diversifying and enhancing science advocacy. Sci. Adv. 9, eabq4899 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

28. Isgren, E., Boda, C. S., Harnesk, D. & O’Byrne, D. Science has much to offer social movements in the face of planetary emergencies. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1498 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

29. Gardner, C. J. & Wordley, C. F. R. Scientists must act on our own warnings to humanity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1271–1272 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

30. The Lancet Planetary Health. A role for provocative protest. Lancet Planet. Health 6, e846 (2022).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

31. Molthan-Hill, P., Worsfold, N., Nagy, G. J., Leal Filho, W. & Mifsud, M. Climate change education for universities: a conceptual framework from an international study. J. Clean. Prod. 226, 1092–1101 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

32. Molthan-Hill, P., Blaj-Ward, L., Mbah, M. F. & Ledley, T. S. in Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (eds Lackner, M. et al.) 3395–3457 (Springer, 2022).

33. Leal Filho, W. et al. Towards a greater engagement of universities in addressing climate change challenges. Sci. Rep. 13, 19030 (2023).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

34. Nelson, M. P. & Vucetich, J. A. On advocacy by environmental scientists: what, whether, why and how. Conserv. Biol. 23, 1090–1101 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

35. Cologna, V., Knutti, R., Oreskes, N. & Siegrist, M. Majority of German citizens, US citizens and climate scientists support policy advocacy by climate researchers and expect greater political engagement. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 024011 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

36. Rae, C. L., Farley, M., Jeffery, K. J. & Urai, A. E. Climate crisis and ecological emergency: why they concern (neuro)scientists, and what we can do. Brain Neurosci. Adv. 6, 23982128221075430 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

37. Capstick, S. et al. Civil disobedience by scientists helps press for urgent climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 773–774 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

38. Racimo, F. et al. The biospheric emergency calls for scientists to change tactics. eLife 11, e83292 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

39. Bennett, H., Macmillan, A., Jones, R., Blaiklock, A. & McMillan, J. Should health professionals participate in civil disobedience in response to the climate change health emergency? Lancet 395, 304–308 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

40. Dablander, F. Understanding and preventing climate breakdown: a guide for social and behavioral scientists. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4uzjs (2023).

41. van Eck, C. W. The next generation of climate scientists as science communicators. Public Underst. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231176382 (2023).

42. Tollefson, J. Top climate scientists are sceptical that nations will rein in global warming. Nature 599, 22–24 (2021).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

43. Gundersen, T. Value-free yet policy-relevant? The normative views of climate scientists and their bearing on philosophy. Perspect. Sci. 28, 89–118 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

44. Kotcher, J. et al. Views of health professionals on climate change and health: a multinational survey study. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e316–e323 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

45. Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., Yuan, S. & Lawrence, F. Understanding scientists’ willingness to engage. Sci. Commun. 40, 559–590 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

46. Latter, B., Demski, C. & Capstick, S. Wanting to be part of change but feeling overworked and disempowered: researchers’ perceptions of climate action in UK universities. PLoS Clim. 3, e0000322 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

47. Nielsen, K. S. et al. Realizing the full potential of behavioural science for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 322–330 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

48. Pielke, R. A. Jr. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

49. Douglas, H. E. Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal (Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 2009).

50. Dablander, F., Sachisthal, M. S. M. & Haslbeck, J. Going beyond research: climate actions by climate and non-climate researchers. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5fqtr (2024).

51. Singh, G. G. et al. A more social science: barriers and incentives for scientists engaging in policy. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 161–166 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

52. Finnerty, S., Piazza, J. & Levine, M. Scientists’ identities shape engagement with environmental activism. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 240 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

53. Riva, R., Duyck, E., Kuppel, S., Marc, O. & Wens, M. Activism as a tool for education and societal outreach: making action attractive and accessible for scientists and effective for a greater audience. EGU General Assembly https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-7892 (2023).

54. Urai, A. & Kelly, C. How to be an academic in a world on fire: a hands-on workshop. Conference on Cognitive Computational Neuroscience https://2023.ccneuro.org/climate_crisis.html (2023).

55. Abramoff, R. Z. et al. Science to action: grassroots activism for scientists. AGU23 https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm23/meetingapp.cgi/Session/202693 (2023).

56. Burgen, S. Barcelona students to take mandatory climate crisis module from 2024. The Guardian (12 November 2022).

57. Loorbach, D. A. & Wittmayer, J. Transforming universities: mobilizing research and education for sustainability transitions at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Sustain. Sci. 19, 19–33 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

58. Urai, A. E. & Kelly, C. Rethinking academia in a time of climate crisis. eLife 12, e84991 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

59. Beall, L., Myers, T. A., Kotcher, J. E., Vraga, E. K. & Maibach, E. W. Controversy matters: impacts of topic and solution controversy on the perceived credibility of a scientist who advocates. PLoS ONE 12, e0187511 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

60. Boykoff, M. & Oonk, D. Evaluating the perils and promises of academic climate advocacy. Clim. Change 163, 27–41 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

61. Cologna, V. et al. Trust in scientists and their role in society across 67 countries. Preprint at OSF https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6ay7s (2024).

62. Kotcher, J. E., Myers, T. A., Vraga, E. K., Stenhouse, N. & Maibach, E. W. Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environ. Commun. 11, 415–429 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

63. Friedman, R. S. Civil disobedience by environmental scientists: an experimental study of its influence on the impact and credibility of climate change research. Environ. Commun. 18, 451–464 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

64. Shuman, E., Goldenberg, A., Saguy, T., Halperin, E. & van Zomeren, M. When are social protests effective? Trends Cogn. Sci. 28, 252–263 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

65. Chenoweth, E. Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford Univ. Press, 2021).

66. Giugni, M., McAdam, D. & Tilly, C. How Social Movements Matter Vol. 10 (Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1999).

67. Temper, L. et al. Movements shaping climate futures: a systematic mapping of protests against fossil fuel and low-carbon energy projects. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 123004 (2020).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

68. Gardner, C. J., Thierry, A., Rowlandson, W. & Steinberger, J. K. From publications to public actions: the role of universities in facilitating academic advocacy and activism in the climate and ecological emergency. Front. Sustain. 2, 679019 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

69. Maibach, E. W., Uppalapati, S. S., Orr, M. & Thaker, J. Harnessing the power of communication and behavior science to enhance society’s response to climate change. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 51, 53–77 (2023).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

70. Tao, Y., Steckel, D., Klemeš, J. J. & You, F. Trend towards virtual and hybrid conferences may be an effective climate change mitigation strategy. Nat. Commun. 12, 7324 (2021).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

71. Leochico, C. F. D., Giusto, M. L. D. & Mitre, R. Impact of scientific conferences on climate change and how to make them eco-friendly and inclusive: a scoping review. J. Clim. Change Health 4, 100042 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

72. Scopus Preview. Welcome to Scopus Preview https://www.scopus.com/standard/marketing.uri#basic (2024)

73. Qualtrics v.06.2023 (Qualtrics^XM, 2023).

74. Dablander, F. fdabl/Climate-Engagement-Scientists: data and code for climate change engagement of scientists (v1.0.0). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12187345 (2024).

75. Howe, P. D., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. R. & Leiserowitz, A. Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 596–603 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

76. ESS Round 8 Source Questionnaire (European Social Survey, 2016).

77. Milfont, T. L. The interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy and concern about global warming and climate change: a one-year longitudinal study. Risk Anal. 32, 1003–1020 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

78. Karatayev, V. A. et al. A well-timed shift from local to global agreements accelerates climate change mitigation. Nat. Commun. 12, 2908 (2021).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

79. Lamb, W. F. et al. Discourses of climate delay. Glob. Sustain. 3, e17 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

80. de Graaf, J. A., Stok, F. M., de Wit, J. B. F. & Bal, M. The climate change skepticism questionnaire: validation of a measure to assess doubts regarding climate change. J. Environ. Psychol. 89, 102068 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

81. Ivanova, D. et al. Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 093001 (2020).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

82. Wynes, S. & Nicholas, K. A. The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 074024 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

83. Alisat, S. & Riemer, M. The environmental action scale: development and psychometric evaluation. J. Environ. Psychol. 43, 13–23 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

84. Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P. & Billiet, J. Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 40, 55–75 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

85. Putnick, D. L. & Bornstein, M. H. Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: the state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Dev. Rev. 41, 71–90 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

86. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world. Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

87. Persson, M. & Solevid, M. Measuring political participation—testing social desirability bias in a web-survey experiment. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 26, 98–112 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

88. Stekhoven, D. J. & Bühlmann, P. MissForest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics 28, 112–118 (2012).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

89. Bürkner, P.-C. brms: an R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J. Stat. Softw. 80, 1–28 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

90. Gelman, A., Jakulin, A., Pittau, M. G. & Su, Y.-S. A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2, 1360–1383 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

91. Agresti, A. Categorical Data Analysis Vol. 792 (John Wiley & Sons, 2012).

92. Arel-Bundock, V., Greifer, N. & Heiss, A. How to interpret statistical models using marginaleffects in R and Python. J. Stat. Softw. (in the press).

93. Heiss, A. Marginalia: a guide to figuring out what the heck marginal effects, marginal slopes, average marginal effects, marginal effects at the mean and all these other marginal things are. https://www.andrewheiss.com/blog/2022/05/20/marginalia/ (2022).

94. Heiss, A. Marginal and conditional effects for GLMMs with {marginaleffects}. https://www.andrewheiss.com/blog/2022/11/29/conditional-marginal-marginaleffects/ (2022).

95. Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat. Sci. 7, 457–472 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

Download references